I know that by using 0:3 in this code in Pascal will put 3 decimal places to the result
var a,b:real;
begin
a:=23;
b:=7;
writeln(a/b:0:3);
readln;
end.
What I would like to know is if anyone has a source to learn what this : will do with other variables or if adding for example 0:3:4 will make a difference. Basically what : can do to a variable
For the exact definition of write parameters take a look at ISO standards 7185 and 10206, “Standard Pascal” and “Extended Pascal” respectively. These references are useless though if your compiler’s documentation does not make a statement regarding compliance with them. Other compilers have their own non-standard extensions, so the only reliable source of reference is your compiler’s documentation or even its source code if available.
[…] what this : will do with other variables […] Basically what : can do to a variable
As MartynA already noted this language is imprecise: The variables’ values are only read by write/writeLn/writeStr, thus leaving them unmodified.
[…] if adding for example 0:3:4 will make a difference.
To my knowledge a third write parameter is/was only allowed in PXSC, Pascal eXtensions for Scientific Computing. In this case the third parameter would indicate for the rounding mode (nonexistent or 0: closest printable number; greater than zero: round up; less than zero: round down).
Related
If I want to see what an image format can be used for I can do the vkGetPhysicalDeviceImageFormatProperties2() and set the usage flag for the image format. I've noticed if the format isn't supported for those usages and settings the structure I pass in is set to all zero, and I can know if the format supports those uses. So if I want to know if VK_FORMAT_R8G8B8_UINT supports sampling from a shader I set the VK_IMAGE_USAGE_SAMPLED_BIT in the usage flags and call that function.
What I wanted to know is if that's equivalent to calling another function, called vkGetPhysicalDeviceFormatProperties2(), exactly the same name but without 'image' in the name, give that function the format, and check whether the VK_IMAGE_USAGE_SAMPLED_BIT is set.
So using the first method I give the format and usages I want from it, and then check if the values returned are zero max width, max height, etc, meaning those usages aren't supported, versus the second method of passing the format, getting back the flags and then checking the flags.
Are these two methods equivalent?
TL;DR: Do your image format checking properly: ask how you can use the format, then ask what functionality is available from usable format&usage combinations.
If you call vkGetPhysicalDeviceImageFormatProperties2 with usage flags and the like that don't correspond to a supported image type, you get an error: VK_ERROR_FORMAT_NOT_SUPPORTED. It inherits this due to the fact that it is said to "behave similarly to vkGetPhysicalDeviceImageFormatProperties", which has an explicit statement about this error:
If format is not a supported image format, or if the combination of format, type, tiling, usage, and flags is not supported for images, then vkGetPhysicalDeviceImageFormatProperties returns VK_ERROR_FORMAT_NOT_SUPPORTED.
Now normally, a function which gives rise to an error will yield undefined values in any return values. But there is a weird exception:
If the combination of parameters to vkGetPhysicalDeviceImageFormatProperties2 is not supported by the implementation for use in vkCreateImage, then all members of imageFormatProperties will be filled with zero.
However, there's an explicit note saying that this was old, bad behavior and is only preserved for compatibility's sake. Being a compatibility feature means that you can rely on it, but you shouldn't. Also, it only applies to the imageFormatProperties data and not any of the extension structures you can pass.
So it's best to just ignore this and ask your questions in the right order.
A vendor I use packages their software with AssemblyScript. They provide some infrastructure and I build on top of it.
Accidentally, I changed my double equal signs ("==") to triple equal signs ("===") in a function that performs equality checks on hexadecimal strings. I spent hours ensuring that the values checked are indeed equal and have the same case sensitivity, but nothing could make the if statement enter the branch I was expecting it to enter, except for going back to "==".
And so I ended up here, asking for help. How is "===" different to "==" in AssemblyScript? Is it some quirk of the language itself or the vendor's parser?
Yes. In AssemblyScript tripple equal ("===") compare raw references and skip overloading operator ("=="). See docs.
There are have proposal avoid this non-standard for TypeScript behaviour. You could check and upvote this issue
This code works:
(3,6...66).contains( 9|21 ).say # OUTPUT: «any(True, True)»
And returns a Junction. It's also tested, but not documented.
The problem is I can't find its implementation anywhere. The Str code, which is also called from Cool, never returns a Junction (it does not take a Junction, either). There are no other methods contain in source.
Since it's autothreaded, it's probably specially defined somewhere. I have no idea where, though. Any help?
TL;DR Junction autothreading is handled by a single central mechanism. I have a go at explaining it below.
(The body of your question starts with you falling into a trap, one I think you documented a year or two back. It seems pretty irrelevant to what you're really asking but I cover that too.)
How junctions get handled
Where is contains( Junction) defined? ... The problem is I can't find [the Junctional] implementation anywhere. ... Since it's autothreaded, it's probably specially defined somewhere.
Yes. There's a generic mechanism that automatically applies autothreading to all P6 routines (methods, operators etc.) that don't have signatures that explicitly control what happens with Junction arguments.
Only a tiny handful of built in routines have these explicit Junction handling signatures -- print is perhaps the most notable. The same is true of user defined routines.
.contains does not have any special handling. So it is handled automatically by the generic mechanism.
Perhaps the section The magic of Junctions of my answer to an earlier SO Filtering elements matching two regexes will be helpful as a high level description of the low level details that follow below. Just substitute your 9|21 for the foo & bar in that SO, and your .contains for the grep, and it hopefully makes sense.
Spelunking the code
I'll focus on methods. Other routines are handled in a similar fashion.
method AUTOTHREAD does the work for full P6 methods.
This is setup in this code that sets up handling for both nqp and full P6 code.
The above linked P6 setup code in turn calls setup_junction_fallback.
When a method call occurs in a user's program, it involves calling find_method (modulo cache hits as explained in the comment above that code; note that the use of the word "fallback" in that comment is about a cache miss -- which is technically unrelated to the other fallback mechanisms evident in this code we're spelunking thru).
The bit of code near the end of this find_method handles (non-cache-miss) fallbacks.
Which arrives at find_method_fallback which starts off with the actual junction handling stuff.
A trap
This code works:
(3,6...66).contains( 9|21 ).say # OUTPUT: «any(True, True)»
It "works" to the degree this does too:
(3,6...66).contains( 2 | '9 1' ).say # OUTPUT: «any(True, True)»
See Lists become strings, so beware .contains() and/or discussion of the underlying issues such as pmichaud's comment.
Routines like print, put, infix ~, and .contains are string routines. That means they coerce their arguments to Str. By default the .Str coercion of a listy value is its elements separated by spaces:
put 3,6...18; # 3 6 9 12 15 18
put (3,6...18).contains: '9 1'; # True
It's also tested
Presumably you mean the two tests with a *.contains argument passed to classify:
my $m := #l.classify: *.contains: any 'a'..'f';
my $s := classify *.contains( any 'a'..'f'), #l;
Routines like classify are list routines. While some list routines do a single operation on their list argument/invocant, eg push, most of them, including classify, iterate over their list doing something with/to each element within the list.
Given a sequence invocant/argument, classify will iterate it and pass each element to the test, in this case a *.contains.
The latter will then coerce individual elements to Str. This is a fundamental difference compared to your example which coerces a sequence to Str in one go.
Is it legal to use variables in printf without supplying the formatting (such as %d, %f).
for example:
printf("value is ok\r\n",myvalue);
The command compiles without errors nor warning, though I am not absolutely sure if it is legal or dangerous.
This reference says
There should be at least as many of these arguments as the number of values specified in the format specifiers. Additional arguments are ignored by the function.
Base on this information, your statement is perfectly legal, however I don't thinks that this is a good idea, since you code could quickly become confusing, which might lead to bugs.
Edit: The original source does not explicitly mention the case of zero arguments. To add another source, the linux man pages states
The format string is composed of zero or more directives.
This source does not discuss what happens with additional arguments. However, combining these two sources gives a definitive answer.
Howcome some languages like PHP and Python use dynamic name resolution?
The only time I've ever thought of using it is to do something like this Python code, to save me from having to explicitly parameters to format:
"{a} {b} {c} {d}".format(**locals())
but it doesn't really take much work to just be explicit (and is a bit less error-prone):
"{a} {b} {c} {d}".format(a=a, b=b, c=c, d=d)
And for setting/getting locals in the same scope, I don't see why anyone would ever use that instead of a map.
Without dynamic name resolution, typos are caught, and you can automatically rename variables without breaking your program (unless something can still read the names of the variables). With dynamic name resolution, you get something that saves you from typing a line? Am I missing something?
Python documentation says they might remove it in the future. Is it more of a historical thing? What's an actual good use case for dynamic name resolution?
Most dynamically typed languages simply don't have a choice. For an expression like x.y you can't look up y statically, since what fields are available depends on the type of x which is only available at runtime.
There are ways around this (such as type inference or JIT), but since the base language has to have dynamic name lookup, most such languages make it into a feature (see e.g. the power of Lua tables).